Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

1. Macroevolution has not ever been a "scientifically plausible explanation for the existence .. of life". Barely two paragraphs in, you're already demonstrating that you lack the knowledge of evolution to discuss it properly.2. Science does not "disprove" things. It invalidates them. A minor point, but one that should be brought up if only to stop people using the wrong damn word in a formal sense. Microevolution deals with evolution in separated gene pools too. You contradict yourself; a species IS BY DEFINITION a separated gene pool. You would have been far better off just providing the Wikipedia definition. That way, your personal misunderstanding couldn't screw up the point you were trying to make. Then you'd be wrong. It clearly does. Hence why the scientific consensus is that it does. Ah, if only belief was enough to actually make a difference to reality, instead of like, not. This is entirely irrelevant.If you are discussing evolution, then discuss evolution. If you are discussing abiogenesis, then discuss abiogenesis.
They are not the same thing. I really wish creotards would get this into their heads... Ah, so because we know one thing, we also know another thing? This is some sort of equivocation fallacy, I think. At least it would be, if you had used it to make a point. Only if you want to use a really bad analogy like that, it is. Dr A did this already.
Petito principii. It means 'begging the question' in English, for anybody reading that doesn't get it. With the PP fallacy, you assume what you want to demonstrate (as opposed to circular logic, which is similar, wherein one uses argument one to prove argument two, and uses argument two to prove argument one. Similar, but different). Exactly as you did here.Is it too much to ask that you come up with new arguments? Or at least research the history of the debate a little first? Please?Edited by Nij, : Coding fix.

ICANT, you're severely missing the point that Taq is trying to make.That single gene is not the only gene responsible for the eye. It is merely one of hundreds or thousands that are involved.
The fact that placing this or that single gene into another animal results in something forming does not make it the only thing involved in making that something.You are trying to argue a nonposition, that a single gene can express the dozens of different proteins making up a single organ like the eye. That alone would make you wrong on this point.The genes you refer to are not the "{organ} genes". They do not build the organs.
They are the "put an {organ name} here" genes. All that they do is switch on the genetic machinery that constructs the organ in that place, a process involving, as mentioned, hundreds or thousands of genes coding for about as many proteins and structures. Which is what Taq has explained multiple times already. Is it really so hard to concede the point when somebody clearly knows what they are talking about? Double helix? Yes, that's part of the definition of DNA.
Human cells contain far more than just one piece though. Ever heard of chromosomes? They're all linked strands of it. 46 helices in 23 pairs, in each cell. Then there's the tidbit of mtDNA as well. So 47 chunks of it floating around, not just one. No. That's not how it works. You made the claim that it contains that number, so you have to support it.Each strand of DNA in those different chromosomes is a different length. The smallest contains around 400 genes in 130 million base pairs (reading from a chart) and the longest has around 4200 genes in almost 250 million base pairs. That's a factor of more than ten and slightly less than two, respectively.I can't convert that into megabits for you, since I don't know what you count as one bit; is it the base pairs? the genes? the codons? Whichever way, you'd be wrong regardless.To state that all have the same amount of information is thus wildly incorrect as well. Because they did.But you are still missing the point. Putting that gene there does not make it the only gene involved in constructing the eye. All it did was tell* the other genes which were already there to build an eye. Well yes, they do.
However, you've been arguing that they effectively do the same thing: you say that these single genes are the only ones that build the eye, Taq used the analogy that this is like saying only the gas tank is involved in making your car go because you can stop the car by putting a hole in the tank. You might be seeing the point now, then...Yes, it is the "master control" gene. Because it controls. Controls what?
Might that possibly be "controls the rest of the genes involved in constructing the eye"?

Yeah, I kind of figured that myself already. His being wrong was a working assumption, and actually having evidence to support said assumption made it factual.It never hurts to debunk the silliness when it does appear though; 84 lurkers (at the moment) could be reading his nonsense and without a sound rebuttal, it's like asking for them to accept it as correct. But seriously, could you resist hitting the pinyata?

Then you would be still be wrong on that highlighted bit.
"Master control gene" is also a bit of a misnomer. All it does is wave the start flag, then bugger off. The processes are chemical reactions and the only thing they require is the DNA being used to build the protein.Taq made the assertion:

quote:

---

there is no single gene for building an eye

---

and you questioned that claim. He made several posts explaining why this was so. I have continued this explanation: one single gene cannot possibly code for an entire eye, because the eye contains more than one type of protein, making it impossible for one gene to do so. You have so far failed to provide anything demonstrating that any of those single genes are responsible for constructing the eye, as opposed to merely being the green flag for a multitude of other genes. With my understanding, no, I wouldn't: gametes.
They only have half the genome of the individual producing them. Hence why you need two gametes, an ovum and a sperm, one from the male and one from the female, to produce one complete genome in the offspring. But they're usually considered as one of the distinct groups, the other being every other cell in the body; collective terms are "germline cells" and "somatic cells".And your quoted material still doesn't address the problem. You said that each strand has 750 megabits of information. I showed that this was impossible: the strands are all different lengths. Taking the material into account, you are now saying either that there are approximately four strands (3 billion divided by 750 million) -- which would make you incorrect, as there are 46 different strands in 23 pairs, as mentioned earlier -- or that your original assertion of 750 megabits is wrong. Oh, FFS ...You may have heard of something called evolution. It works by a variety of processes, the most notable of which are called genetic drift -- random change in frequency of alleles by e.g. mutation; reproductive 'random sampling' processes; immigration or emigration of populations -- and natural selection -- the change in frequency of alleles by removal of those which are disadvantageous and increase in those which are advantageous.
There exists a large body of work regarding the phenomenon. Perhaps you could research some of it in your spare time, and thereby become better acquainted with it?So, do you actually want to make an argument about evolution, or are you going to play the 'ignorance', 'incredulity', and 'blind assertion' cards, as we normally expect?

With some exceptions, yes. No. That information can certainly create an eye. This has been explained to you since the time you replied. For these three, yes. It's a trivial fact that the gene which tells the body to produce an eye must be present for the organism to have an eye.And unfortunately for you, none of those points is a rebuttal of the fact that one single gene is not responsible for the cinstruction of the entire eye. These ARE chemical reactions. They occur because of physical and chemical laws."Would you like to make an argument about evolution?"
"No, but I would like to make one about evolution."What the fuck, dude? I'm sure you aren't really that obtuse.
In any case, try these first.
29+ Evidence For Macrevolution
Wikipedia: list of transitional fossils

No, I'm not. The transfer of information by mRNA and tRNA occurs via chemical reactions. Chemical reactions follow the laws of physics and chemistry.Do I really have to explain this stuff to an adult like it's basic addition? You wanted to talk about this, you do the learning required.Macroevolution is evolution.
I asked whether you wanted to talk about evolution. You said no, you wanted to talk about.. evolution.
So no, that is not cherrypicking or quotemining. It is a simple example of your lack of faith in this debate, continued by your refusal to examine any and all evidence supplied to you. All it requires on your behalf is to 1. click the link, and 2. read the fucking evidence.I don't know much more simple it could be. The stuff is even laid out in a nice linear progression, with all these categories and intralinks; the second one is exactly what it says: a list.
Of transitional fossils.
Which you predict do not exist.
Because of there being no macroevolution.
But they do exist.
So you are wrong.
And thus there must be macroevolution.As you can say, I've begun reducing my sentences to those a child would understand, since speaking as if you were an adult obviously doesn't work.